NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep - a loyal soldier who was preparing to overthrow the government if it didn't start the war he wanted....
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&ncid=1312&e=8&u=/afp/20041116/wl_mideast_afp/israel_sharon_army_coup_041116114136)

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) has acknowledged he considered a military coup as the only way to force Israel into war against Egypt in 1967.

The army has been widely reported to have exerted fierce pressure on the government to declare what has become known as the Six-Day War, but that Sharon or any other generals contemplated a military putsch comes as a revelation.

In a first-hand account published Tuesday in the defence ministry's Maarakhot review, Sharon admitted to having seen a time when the army could "take power to persuade the government" to launch a pre-emptive strike against Egypt.

"For the first time, I felt such a thing could happen in Israel and that it would be welcomed," by the people, Sharon was quoted as saying in the study.

"That isn't to say that the army would have seized power and led the country, but made decisions" instead of civil administrators, Sharon added. At the time, he commanded an armoured division in southern Israel.

The quotes you selected seem to show that he just thought it was possible. Not that he was planning anything.

Yes. I also thought the article didn't go that far either.

It just seemed that he considrered it a possibility.

In any event it never happened. Nor does it seems as if there was an active conspiracy.

Well, he always has been an uber-hawk.

Yes, because it is common for Commanders to talk about the feasibility of overthrowing the government to the Army chief of Staff.... that happens all the time! Heck, Colin Powell, Tommy Franks, Schwartzkop aLLL used to hang out and talk about ways to take over the White House if they didn't get to invade places.....


But yes, admitedly concrete plans were never drawn up, but then again the threat aparently was enough to get Eshkol to do their bidding. However he is the first of the Generals to even admit that it was discussed at that time.


At which point all it really needed was for Rabin to tell Eshkol "look, I hear rumours ... some Generals aren't happy..... matters into their own hands... "

The difference is, you don't hear about Powell and co. Sharon only admitted it now. In 30 years, you'll hear Powell talking about overthrowing the American goverment. Watch this space:)

Hey, Powell might have had a shot at legitimately getting the presidency in 1996 if he hadn't been smeared by ueber-conservatives in the republican party.

Hey, Powell might have had a shot at legitimately getting the presidency in 1996 if he hadn't been smeared by ueber-conservatives in the republican party.

Powell would have had my vote for president, even running as a Republican, up until he started to act as the mouthpiece for Bush's WMD lies.

Yes, because it is common for Commanders to talk about the feasibility of overthrowing the government to the Army chief of Staff.... that happens all the time! Heck, Colin Powell, Tommy Franks, Schwartzkop aLLL used to hang out and talk about ways to take over the White House if they didn't get to invade places.....


But yes, admitedly concrete plans were never drawn up, but then again the threat aparently was enough to get Eshkol to do their bidding. However he is the first of the Generals to even admit that it was discussed at that time.


At which point all it really needed was for Rabin to tell Eshkol "look, I hear rumours ... some Generals aren't happy..... matters into their own hands... "


To be fair the same conditions have never pertained to the US - or at least for most of its history.

Imagine if the population of Mexico and Canada were tenty times that of the US and their stated aim was to drive the US into the sea. Then imagine that the mexican government starts to mass tank divisions south of the Rio Grande.

If the President failed to acknowledge the danger, US generals could may well start to discuss taking the decisions out of the Presidents hands.

Indeed Zeppistan; it seems to me that your personal distaste for Israel and Sharon may be causing you to try to inflate these "revelations", notable as they are, into something much more sinister/significant.

History is filled with myriads of examples of "what might have beens". As Santaphrax noted, what makes this one significant is that it has come out- and gotten attention- only 30 years later, rather than 70-plus, when all of the involved would be dead or irrelevant.

I take two things away from this:

1- That Sharon is at least in some ways more committed to his ideology of protecting the state than of serving it/obeying the rule of law (which isn't really new, although it's notable the plan was scrapped).

2- That Israel needs fresh blood in its politicians. Potential activities from 30 years ago shouldn't be relevant to the contemporary leadership. The fact that octegenarians are in charge, and can be implicated in such things, only further speaks to the sad reality of the political leadership. I think this is applicable to America, too (anyone say Vietnam?)